Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 06/17/2025 was/were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2017184420 A1 (hereinafter Bribbla).
Regarding claim 1, Bribbla teaches an optical measurement system, comprising: “a sampling interface defining a launch site and a set of collection sites each laterally spaced from the launch site” (fig. 4I, the sampling interface is the top portion just below element 420, para [0067] lines 3-8; a launch site corresponds to the site where element 455 exits element 416; a set of collection sites are the lights entering elements 418 and 419); “launch architecture configured to emit an emission light beam that exits the sampling interface through the launch site” (these are the lights 450 and 452 in fig. 4I); and “collection architecture comprising a set of detector elements positioned to measure light that has entered the sampling interface through the set of collection sites” (these are elements 433 and 437), wherein: “the set of detector elements forms a set of measurement channels when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam” (these are shown in fig. 4I elements 433 and 441 form two channels); “the emission light beam converges in a first dimension as it exits the sampling interface” (this limitation is based from para [122] and fig. 3A of the application; Bribbla teaches this limitation in fig. 4I, where an angle is formed between light 452 and the sample; p. 14 para [0069] lines 6-8, the light beam focuses or converges onto the sample); and “the emission light beam, if emitted into a target sample, projects to a transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for at least one of the set of measurement channels” (this is shown in fig. 4I, the “transition region in the target sample” corresponds to when element 452 interacts with the sample and the sample scatters light; the examiner interprets the “angle independent for at least one of the set of measurement channels” as any angle that formed between the sample and the scatter lights).
Regarding claim 2, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, wherein: the launch architecture is configured such that the emission light beam has a beam vergence half-angle of at least 15 degrees in the first dimension as the emission light beam exits the sampling interface (this limitation is shown in fig. 3A of the application; Bribla discloses this in para [0040] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 3, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 2, wherein: the launch architecture is configured such that the emission light beam has a beam vergence half-angle of at least 30 degrees in the first dimension as the emission light beam exits the sampling interface (this limitation is shown in fig. 3A of the application; Bribla discloses this in para [0040] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 5, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 4, wherein: “the first set of detector elements forms a first set of measurement channels when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam” (fig. 4I element 433); the second set of detector elements forms a second set of measurement channels when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam (fig. 4I element 433); and “the transition region in the target sample is angle independent for the first set of measurement channels and the second set of measurement channels” (fig. 4I shows θ and θ3 are different from each other and the sample scattered lights in all directions, which is angle independent).
Regarding claim 6, Bribbla teaches “the optical measurement system of claim 5, wherein: the launch architecture is configured such that the emission light beam has, as the emission light beam exits the sampling interface, a first beam width in the first dimension and a second beam width in a second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension; and the second beam width is at least eight times the first beam width” (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 3B of the application, which is based on fig. 3A; since Bribbla teaches fig. 3 of the instant application as shown in fig. 4I, this implies Bribbla also teaches this entire limitation).
Regarding claim 7, Bribbla teaches an optical measurement system, comprising: “a sampling interface defining a launch site and a first collection site laterally spaced from the launch site” (fig. 4I the space below element 420); “launch architecture configured to emit an emission light beam that exits the sampling interface through the launch site” (fig. 4I light source 402, launch site is where light beam 416 exits the sampling interface); and “collection architecture comprising a first detector element and configured to: collect a first return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the first collection site” (fig. 4I detector 433); and direct the return light beam to the first detector element (this is shown in fig. 4I), wherein: the first detector element forms a first measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam (fig. 4A element 487 is the channel); “the first return light beam diverges in a first dimension as it enters the sampling interface” (the sample scatters or diverges the light before going back to the sampling interference as shown in fig. 4I); and “the first return light beam, if collected from a target sample, projects from a first transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the first measurement channel” (this is the light detected by detector 433 from the after as shown in fig. 4I).
Regarding claim 8, Bribbla teaches “the optical measurements system of claim 7, wherein: the collection architecture is configured such that the first return light beam has a beam vergence half-angle of at least 15 degrees in the first dimension as the return light beam enters the sampling interface” (p. 30 para [0139] last sentence).
Regarding claim 9, Bribbla teaches “the optical measurements system of claim 8, wherein: the collection architecture is configured such that the first return light beam has a beam vergence half-angle of at least 30 degrees in the first dimension as the return light beam enters the sampling interface” (p. 30 para [0139] last sentence).
Regarding claim 10, fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach the optical measurement system of claim 7, wherein: the collection architecture comprises a second detector element and is configured to: collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the first collection site; and direct the second return light beam to the second detector element, wherein: the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam; and the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface.
However, fig. 14A of Bribbla teaches “the optical measurement system of claim 7, wherein: the collection architecture comprises a second detector element and is configured to: collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the first collection site; and direct the second return light beam to the second detector element, wherein: the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam; and the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface” (the second detector is any of the three detectors in figs. 14A, and the first collection site is location 1446).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply fig. 14A of Bribbla to the fig. 4I of Bribbla to have “the optical measurement system of claim 7, wherein: the collection architecture comprises a second detector element and is configured to: collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the first collection site; and direct the second return light beam to the second detector element, wherein: the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam; and the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface” in order to determine the lateral position of light incident at the exterior interface of the system (e.g., interface where the system contacts the sample) (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 11, fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach the optical measurement system of claim 10, wherein: the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel.
Fig. 14D of Bribbla teaches “the optical measurement system of claim 10, wherein: the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” (fig. 14D-E element 1457 is coming from the target sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply fig. 14D of Bribbla to the fig. 4I of Bribbla to have “the optical measurement system of claim 10, wherein: the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” in order to allow a single optics in the optics unit to collect a range of scattering angles (para [0157] lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 13, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 7, wherein: the collection architecture is configured such that the first return light beam has, as the first return light beam enters the sampling interface, a first beam width in the first dimension and a second beam width in a second dimension perpendicular to the first dimension; and the second beam width is at least eight times the first beam width (this entire limitation is shown in fig. 3B of the application, which is based on fig. 3A; since Bribbla teaches fig. 3 of the instant application as shown in fig. 4I, this implies Bribbla also teaches this entire limitation).
Regarding claim 14, Bribbla teaches an optical measurement system, comprising: “a sampling interface defining a launch site and a first collection site laterally spaced from the launch site” (fig. 4I, the sampling interface is the top portion just below element 420, para [0067] lines 3-8; a launch site corresponds to the site where element 455 exits element 416; a set of collection sites are the lights entering elements 418 and 419); “launch architecture configured to emit an emission light beam that exits the sampling interface through the launch site” (these are the lights 450 and 452 in fig. 4I); and collection architecture comprising a first detector element (fig. 4I detector 433) and configured to: collect a first return light beam that enters the first sampling interface through the collection site (this is shown in fig. 4I); and direct the return light beam to the first detector element (this is shown in fig. 4I), wherein: the first detector element forms a measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam (fig. 4A opening 487); the emission light beam converges in a first dimension as it exits the sampling interface (this limitation is based from para [122] and fig. 3A of the application; Bribbla teaches this limitation in fig. 4I, where an angle is formed between light 452 and the sample; p. 14 para [0069] lines 6-8, the light beam focuses or converges onto the sample); the return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface (the sample scatters lights in all directions); and the optical measurement system is configured such that, if used to measure a target sample characteristics (p. 3 para [0005] lines 1-7): “the emission light beam projects to a first transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the measurement channel” (this is shown in fig. 4I, the “transition region in the target sample” corresponds to when element 452 interacts with the sample and the sample scatters light; the examiner interprets the “angle independent for at least one of the set of measurement channels” as any angle that formed between the sample and the scatter lights).
Fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach the return light beam projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the measurement channel.
Fig. 14D of Bribbla teaches “the return light beam projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the measurement channel” (this is just equivalent to the sample scattering lights in all directions and is angle-in dependent)” (this is shown in fig. 14D the second transition are the lights coming from the middle elliptical shape of the sample 1420).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply fig. 14D of Bribbla to the fig. 4I of Bribbla to have “the return light beam projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the measurement channel” in order to allow a single optics in the optics unit to collect a range of scattering angles (para [0157] lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 15, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 14, wherein: the launch architecture is configured such that the emission light beam has a beam vergence half-angle of at least 15 degrees in the first dimension as the emission light beam exits the sampling interface (this limitation is shown in fig. 3A of the application; Bribla discloses this in para [0040] lines 1-5).
Regarding claim 16, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 14, wherein: the collection architecture is configured such that the first return light beam has a beam vergence half-angle of at least 15 degrees in the first dimension as the return light beam enters the sampling interface (para [0139] last sentence).
Regarding claim 17, fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach the optical measurement system of claim 14, wherein: the collection architecture comprises a second detector element and is configured to: collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the first collection site; and direct the second return light beam to the second detector element, wherein: the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam; and the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface. Regarding claim 18, fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach the optical measurement system of claim 17, wherein: the first transition region is angle independent for the second measurement channel.
Fig. 14A of Bribbla teaches “the optical measurement system of claim 14, wherein: the collection architecture comprises a second detector element and is configured to: collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the first collection site; and direct the second return light beam to the second detector element, wherein: the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam; and the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface” (the second detector is any of the three detectors in figs. 14A, and the first collection site is location 1446) and the optical measurement system of claim 17, wherein: the first transition region is angle independent for the second measurement channel (fig. 14A, the location 1457 has scattered lights from the sample).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply fig. 14A of Bribbla to the fig. 4I of Bribbla to have “the optical measurement system of claim 14, wherein: the collection architecture comprises a second detector element and is configured to: collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the first collection site; and direct the second return light beam to the second detector element, wherein: the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam; and the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface” and the optical measurement system of claim 17, wherein: the first transition region is angle independent for the second measurement channel in order to determine the lateral position of light incident at the exterior interface of the system (e.g., interface where the system contacts the sample) (para [0027]).
Regarding claim 19, fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach the optical measurement system of claim 17, wherein: the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a third transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel.
Fig. 7 of Bribbla teaches “the optical measurement system of claim 17, wherein: the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a third transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” (the third transition region is location 759).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply fig. 7 of Bribbla to the fig. 4I of Bribbla to have the optical measurement system of claim 17, wherein: the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a third transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel in order to resolve multiple optical path lengths with one-layer of optics (para [0101] lines 1-2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 4, 12, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bribbla as applied to claim(s) 1, 7, 14 above, and in view of US20210033805A1 (hereinafter Bishop).
Regarding claim 4, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 1, wherein: “the set of collection sites comprises a first collection site and a second collection site” (fig. 4I elements 487 and 489, para [0076] lines 1-3, para [0079] line 5); and “the set of detector elements” (fig. 4I detectors 433 and 437) comprises: “a first set of detector elements positioned to measure light that has entered the sampling interface through the first collection site” (fig. 4I detectors 433 and 437); and “a second set of detector elements positioned to measure light that has entered the sampling interface through the second collection site” (fig. 4I detectors 433 and 437).
Bribbla fails to teach the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site.
Bishop, from the same field of endeavor as Bribbla, teaches the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site (this is shown in fig. 2B, para [0036] lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bishop to Bribbla to have the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site in order to obtain more scattering lights from the sample (para [0033] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 12, Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 7, wherein: the collection architecture comprises a second detector element (fig. 4I detector 437) and is configured to: “collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the second collection site” (this is shown in fig. 4I at θ3); and “direct the second return light beam to the second detector element” (this is shown in fig. 4I); “the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam” (p. 16 para [0078] lines 1-6); “the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface” (this is just equivalent to the sample scatters lights).
Bribbla fails to teach the sampling interface defines a second collection site positioned such that the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site and “the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” (this is just equivalent to the sample scattering lights in all directions and is angle-in dependent).
Fig. 14D of Bribbla teaches “the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” (this is just equivalent to the sample scattering lights in all directions and is angle-in dependent)” (this is shown in fig. 14D the second transition are the lights coming from the middle elliptical shape of the sample 1420).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply fig. 14D of Bribbla to the fig. 4I of Bribbla to have “the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a second transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” in order to allow a single optics in the optics unit to collect a range of scattering angles (para [0157] lines 1-4).
Bishop, from the same field of endeavor as Bribbla, teaches the sampling interface defines a second collection site positioned such that the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site (this is shown in fig. 2B, para [0036] lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bishop to Bribbla to have the sampling interface defines a second collection site positioned such that the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site in order to obtain more scattering lights from the sample (para [0033] lines 1-3).
Regarding claim 20, fig. 4I of Bribbla teaches the optical measurement system of claim 14, wherein: the sampling interface defines a second collection site (this is the location of θ3 in fig. 4I) the collection architecture comprises a second detector element (fig. 4I detector 437) and is configured to: “collect a second return light beam that enters the sampling interface through the second collection site” (this is shown in fig. 4I); and direct the second return light beam to the second detector element (this is shown in fig. 4I); “the second detector element forms a second measurement channel when the launch architecture emits the emission light beam” (fig. 4I detector 437); the second return light beam diverges in the first dimension as it enters the sampling interface (the second return light beam is from the scattered light of the sample 420).
Fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach positioned such that the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site; and the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a third transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel.
Fig. 14D of Bribbla teaches “the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a third transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” (this is shown in fig. 14D the third transition are the lights coming from the upper elliptical shape of the sample 1420).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply fig. 14D of Bribbla to the fig. 4I of Bribbla to have “the second return light beam, if collected from the target sample, projects from a third transition region in the target sample that is angle independent for the second measurement channel” in order to allow a single optics in the optics unit to collect a range of scattering angles (para [0157] lines 1-4).
Fig. 4I of Bribbla does not teach positioned such that the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site.
Bishop, from the same field of endeavor as Bribbla, positioned such that the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site (this is shown in fig. 2B, para [0036] lines 1-3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the teaching of Bishop to Bribbla to have positioned such that the launch site is positioned between the first collection site and the second collection site in order to obtain more scattering lights from the sample (para [0033] lines 1-3).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERTO FABIAN JR whose telephone number is (571)272-3632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F (8-12, 1-5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, KARA GEISEL can be reached at (571)272-2416. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERTO FABIAN JR/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877